Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a summary/aggregate result shape with per-edition and per-organization counts, plus the empty-day returning total 0. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination behavior beyond what the limit param implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: what it lists, the follow-up, and the empty-day behavior. Scope is front-loaded and every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description still covers the two things an agent could get wrong: that the day may legitimately be empty and that ids should be fed to dof_get_note. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each of the four parameters has a precise description including the date format, the limit ceiling and the "counts always cover the whole day" caveat, plus an enum for edition. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond restating the one-day scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Lists") plus resource ("publications in the Diario Oficial de la Federación") with an explicit time scope ("for one day") and the aggregation it returns (counts by edition and issuing organization). It also positions itself against the sibling dof_get_note by naming it as the consumer of the returned ids, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear next step ("Use the returned ids with dof_get_note") and a concrete edge-case rule ("Days without an issue (weekends, holidays) return total 0") that tells the agent not to treat empty results as failure. No explicit exclusion or comparison against dof_get_indicators, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond that, including the weekend/holiday caveat, the date-publication behavior, and the 366-day series limit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly structured and front-loaded: it states what is returned, then covers the no-argument, date, and series modes. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough detail to call the tool correctly across all modes. Its main gap is that it does not route the agent between this tool and dof_daily_summary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter-level descriptions already carry much of the burden. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters combine into modes and by clarifying that 'indicator' with 'from'/'to' produces a daily series limited to at most 366 days.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource (returns DOF-published financial indicators) and names the specific indicators: FIX, UDI, and TIIE. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling dof_daily_summary, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly explains the three invocation modes: no arguments for today, date for that day, and indicator+from+to for a daily series. It also gives a useful preference hint to use a series for finding the most recent value, though it does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about plain-text content and continuation via nextOffset. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but those are not essential here given the annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences carry the core purpose first and the paging instruction second. There is no wasted text, and the most important calling behavior is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, so the description need not explain return shape or safety profile. It adequately covers purpose and pagination, with only minor gaps such as not mentioning maxChars truncation behavior in the prose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by connecting the output field nextOffset to the offset parameter for paging, though maxChars remains documented only in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns one DOF publication with content as plain text. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as dof_daily_summary or dof_get_indicators.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The pagination guidance is explicit: when nextOffset is present, call again with offset=nextOffset. However, the description does not state when to choose this tool over its siblings or what prerequisite workflow should produce the note id, so broader usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.